We have POTENTIAL evidence that hasn't shown up yet, according to even you. You HONESTLY think Monsanto or the federal government gives a crap about you?

Yet it seems you don't give two flips about that thought, even trying to shoot down others' advise to stay away from it.

Go back and read my first response to you. It contains both my original point and my thoughts on the GMO companies.

"There's no evidence that GMO soy is any different from non-GMO in terms of nutrients or health. The only reason to stay away from GMO is because it's controlled by unethical companies."

To be even more clear, my point is that when advising someone to stay away from GMO products, be specific as to why. There's no need to feed into fear-mongering about GMOs being unhealthy, but it's worth noting how awful Monsanto et al are. That way, people aren't misled and can make their own choices.

blabbate wrote:Fair enough. I was just clarifying your comment for other readers. Just happy to help!

You ignored the one study that took me all of 30 secs to google (I refuse to go deeper), never answered most of my questions and hence never made a point beyond mine, wasted everyone's time, and now the truth of why you did all this surfaces.

Your prejudiced opinion of me and my posts is dually noted and well marked. I will remember your motives in the future and never, ever respond to your posts again.

Recent comprehensive literature reviews have concluded that there is currently no scientific consensus regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms. There are numerous concerns with GM organisms and the scientific community remains divided on many of these issues.

While the nutritional value of GM foods is likely similar, there are concerns regarding allergenicity, toxicity, and gene transfer. Additionally, there are numerous environmental concerns.

Simply put, the health and environmental effects of genetic modification are unknown. GM organisms have not been around long enough for us to have valid long-term data on the subject. The scientific community is divided in their predictions. In cases of uncertainty and potential harm, we abide by the precautionary principle. The potential benefits of genetic modification do not outweigh the potential for harm. Our time and resources would be better spent on creating seed-banks, saving heirloom seeds, trying to reverse the unsustainable trend of monoculture factory farming, et cetera.

Plant-based athlete, personal trainer, group fitness instructor, and nutritional consultant in South Carolina!!!

It is perfectly valid to claim that genetic modification is unsafe, and I will explain why.

First, we must define safe. Google defines safe as "Protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed."

Because the effects of genetic modification are entirely unknown, we cannot assume that we are protected from danger or risk. When dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume that we are not likely to be harmed. Until we can be confident that we are protected from danger or risk and not likely to be harmed, the activity is unsafe.

Suppose that there is a very tall tree by the river with a branch growing out over the water. You want to climb the tree and jump off of the limb into the water because it looks super exciting! The depth of the water is unknown. There is no way to determine the depth of the water at this time. There is also no way to determine what might be underneath the water, hidden from view. Perhaps there is a fallen tree under the water. Maybe there are rocks. Maybe there is an alligator. Given these circumstances, if someone told you that jumping is not safe, would you think "We don't know whether or not it is safe to jump." ? Until the depth of the water is known, jumping is not safe.

Suppose that you are blind and deaf and you are considering crossing a roadway while alone. You don't have any evidence suggesting that a car is going to hit you. Is crossing the road safe or unsafe?

The effects of genetic modification are unknown. Until we fully understand all of the long-term effects of genetic modification, production is not safe.

The precautionary principle is not a challenging concept. I am convinced that most scientists and doctors today don't receive sufficient instruction on the philosophical disciplines of epistemology, logic, and ethics.

Plant-based athlete, personal trainer, group fitness instructor, and nutritional consultant in South Carolina!!!

No. No, it's not. You're just going in the other direction. "It's unsafe because we have no evidence that it's safe" and "it's safe because we have no evidence that it's unsafe" are equivalently invalid. You just chose the one you agreed with.

trainer_j0hn wrote:Absence of evidence of harm does not = evidence of absence of harm.

But, according to you, absence of evidence of safety = evidence of absence of safety. Do you see where the issue is?

trainer_j0hn wrote:It is perfectly valid to claim that genetic modification is unsafe, and I will explain why.

First, we must define safe. Google defines safe as "Protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed."

Because the effects of genetic modification are entirely unknown, we cannot assume that we are protected from danger or risk.

We can't assume that we're exposed to it either. We can't assume we're likely to be harmed.

trainer_j0hn wrote:When dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume that we are not likely to be harmed. Until we can be confident that we are protected from danger or risk and not likely to be harmed, the activity is unsafe.

Your first sentence went on too long. It should read, "when dealing with unknowns, we cannot assume." This whole time, I've been talking about evidence. "Unsafe" is not the default state in the absence of evidence of safety.

trainer_j0hn wrote:Suppose that there is a very tall tree by the river with a branch growing out over the water. You want to climb the tree and jump off of the limb into the water because it looks super exciting! The depth of the water is unknown. There is no way to determine the depth of the water at this time. There is also no way to determine what might be underneath the water, hidden from view. Perhaps there is a fallen tree under the water. Maybe there are rocks. Maybe there is an alligator. Given these circumstances, if someone told you that jumping is not safe, would you think "We don't know whether or not it is safe to jump." ? Until the depth of the water is known, jumping is not safe.

Actually, it could be perfectly safe. You don't know. If the water is deep enough, you are not exposed to harm. Your knowledge doesn't change that. It doesn't in any way affect the empirical safety of jumping. You went a bit nutty with the fallacies here. Argument from ignorance, bandwagon fallacy, and some bizarre, inverted appeal to consequences that I'm sure has a formal name.

trainer_j0hn wrote:The precautionary principle is not a challenging concept. I am convinced that most scientists and doctors today don't receive sufficient instruction on the philosophical disciplines of epistemology, logic, and ethics.

The precautionary principle is a policy methodology, and I've been focusing on scientific fact. However, even the precautionary principle isn't a blanket prohibition on activities that may cause harm. There is always a threshold of plausible risk. In the words of the EU, there need to be "reasonable grounds for concern." So you still need something besides your own opinion, though the burden of proof is lower.

Actually they're starting to ban it in Europe, and for good reason. That stuff is NOT good for you, and I do believe it's the cause for the amazing quantities of allergies people now seem to have these days.